posted
I really don't think there's any proposal on the table that would be quite that oppressive. I completely agree with you that there's no way to shut down or silence people that wouldn't be oppressive. But I haven't seen BlackBlade propose a way to do so, either. He's just stating an opinion.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
what's more fascinating about the eich thing in general is that if eich was performing otherwise identical support of discrimination against blacks instead of discrimination against gays, practically nobody on the "eich was unfairly ousted by intolerant people" bandwagon would apply any of these arguments in support of him, they would just say "of course he needed to go"
it's purely a function of that a number of cultural forces have ensured that gays are more 'legitimate' targets for marginalization and so you can get away with a hell of a lot more bigotry against them. Give us a couple more decades, though, and it will be looked back at as ruefully and straightforwardly as we look back at anti-miscegenation views today.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I really don't think there's any proposal on the table that would be quite that oppressive. I completely agree with you that there's no way to shut down or silence people that wouldn't be oppressive. But I haven't seen BlackBlade propose a way to do so, either. He's just stating an opinion.
I know he is. I pretty firmly believe the reason he holds that opinion is because he hasn't considered the ramifications of it.
If his opinion was merely "man, it sure sucks Brendan Eich was pressured to quit his job" well then, that's perfectly fine. It's actually very important to me not to criticize people for empathizing or feeling sorry for *anyone*, no matter who they are. But then he extended that to "Brendan Eich shouldn't have been pressured to quit his job" and also called the people who applied that pressure hypocrites.
And that's where the problem lies - he's maligning and demonizing gays and their allies for, essentially, making use of their rights to free expression and free association to say they don't want to work for a bigot. (I'm leaving the boycotters out of this because BB had earlier conceded his problem was specifically with Mozilla's employees, not with people choosing not to use Mozilla products)
And so that's why I'm inferring contrapositive "shoulds" to his "shouldn't have":
Often, when he brings forth this "philosophy of courtesy" as Rakeesh called it, he offers tantalizing glimpses of an imagined "good" solution where oppressors (and if "oppressors" is too stylized a term I apologize. It's my generalization of "who BB is defending this week" whether it's bigots, sexists, etc.) are treated with complete courtesy and deference and are never exposed to the "injustice" of being pressured to change or face any consequence for their actions, but those they actively oppress are still somehow not being censored and marginalized.
So I (and others) have, perhaps in vain, tried to convince him that that "good" solution doesn't exist. I've done it both by playing out the logical conclusions of his opinion, and also by asking him questions about some of the contradictions in his proposed solutions. I think (and I could be wrong, but I believe this is a fair and rational extrapolation of his arguments) the reason he continues to champion this cause is because, in his mind, it's noble and just in a quixotic sort of way. I'm trying to dispel that notion.
And here's the main thrust of all this:
Regardless of noble intentions, the reality of tone policing of the oppressed is that we cast them as the villain for expressing their desire to not be oppressed, and thereby silence and re-victimize them, because it's a means of allowing the oppressor class to dictate the terms of what is and isn't acceptable expression. And those terms are *never* consistent.
You'll notice with BlackBlade's arguments, the line of "hither shalt thou come but no further" for what expression is acceptable is *always*, conveniently, just a little bit behind where whatever group he is criticizing stands. For the "masculinists" earlier, it was them feeling like they maybe were no longer safe holding a rally (despite any evidence of threat being made), but a protest is perfectly acceptable. Heck, on Sakeriver BB had even talked about going and taking pictures of these guys! But for those protesting Eich, wait, hold on a second, protest is no longer acceptable expression. Now one has to use the "internal apparatus to voice grievances" (whatever the fudgemonkey that means) in order to considered acceptable expression. And I showed in my last post how, logically, even doing that and then quietly quitting could still be unacceptable by his standards because his standard is "no pressure should have been placed on Eich to quit." ...
The truth is we already have hard lines that have been drawn and codified into law. The state can't fine, imprison, or otherwise punish someone for free expression, no matter how vile or bigoted. You can't murder, assault, or threaten (including stalking) someone for their free expression. Within reason, you can't prevent someone from expressing themselves freely in a public space. (For exceptions see yelling fire in a theater, or harassing someone or threatening them, some obscenity laws (for broadcast TV), etc.) You can't prevent them from printing those opinions, or I suppose in this day and age, from broadcasting them or expressing them on your website. (if you can find someone willing to broadcast or host you) You can't prevent people from making donations to political organizations or supporting political causes, or from freely assembling to talk about those causes. You can't prevent anyone from following their religious beliefs, or from freely expressing those beliefs. (again, some exceptions like snake handling in church or denying medicine to children obviously apply) When you try to push those line, past those already codified in law to things like "you can't protest your boss being a bigot" - or at least saying that those who *do* such things are hypocritical or immoral - you are advocating curtailing the free expression of the oppressed for the benefit of the oppressor.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: what's more fascinating about the eich thing in general is that if eich was performing otherwise identical support of discrimination against blacks instead of discrimination against gays, practically nobody on the "eich was unfairly ousted by intolerant people" bandwagon would apply any of these arguments in support of him, they would just say "of course he needed to go"
it's purely a function of that a number of cultural forces have ensured that gays are more 'legitimate' targets for marginalization and so you can get away with a hell of a lot more bigotry against them. Give us a couple more decades, though, and it will be looked back at as ruefully and straightforwardly as we look back at anti-miscegenation views today.
Yeah. That's why I continued to ask BlackBlade about what his opinion would be if it was a racist rather than homophobic boss, and the best he could muster is "that's not a fair comparison" and refused to explain why when asked.
The only reason it wouldn't be a fair comparison is if you believe discrimination against gays is somehow less reprehensible than discrimination against blacks. And for that to be the case, one must believe gays are less deserving of civil rights than blacks. (or in this case, I think, sympathize a lot more with homophobes than racists because one might belong to a religion with a lot of blatantly homophobic members and leaders...)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I can think of one significant difference. Generally people opposed to SSM, or who simply disapprove of homosexual behavior, believe one or both things: one, homosexuality is a choice; two, it's their business what sexual, romantic, and family choices are made by two consenting adults. (They may not believe the first, but they by definition believe the second). Nearly universally they believe the second thing for some variant of 'God says so.'
With racism it's a bit different. People cannot choose their race, it's predetermined. And so although it's taken millenia and still isn't done yet, a key foundation for why it's ok to be a racist is gone: it's not something fair to condemn someone for because it wasn't any choice of theirs. That and agonizingly slow progress showing that hey race is a shitty indicator for morality and industriousness, also still going.
But if you believe homosexuality itself is a choice, or if not it's an urge that should and can be resisted, well then that foundation is back. It's a choice they're making, it's wrong according to God, so it's kosher to condemn them.
Of course the truth is that even if it is a choice, it's none of their business, and even if it was it would be far from clear they were worthy defenders of the institution of marriage anyway. And while it's useful to understand why the Eichs of the world think the way they do (for one thing it means we can understand that Eich isn't Phelps, not to damn with faint praise), there comes a point when it stops mattering as much if their intentions are good.
BB, if your current boss decided tomorrow, "BB, I'm going to need you to divorce your wife at once. I'm also going to work to make it illegal for you ever to have married her. I'm going to do this using resources which you in part help me accumulate. But don't worry, I will continue to treat you with fairness and dignity in the workplace, so please don't think about leaving yet. Or if you do, don't tell anyone why as that would be unreasonable pressure."
To me this scenario seems pretty similar to the one being discussed with some convenient word switches. If this happened to you, I doubt you would behave as you insist homosexuals and their supporters should have behaved.
Or if you did I would be angry, for you, for letting yourself be humiliated like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I'm leaving this conversation for a couple of reasons. Primarily because I am being completely ineffectual at changing anybody's mind. And because all I'm doing is restating my ideas and then seeing many of them misunderstood and given back at me without any familiarity to what I originally felt when I sent them out. And with conclusions I increasingly find baffling and infuriating.
You may see it as me refusing to change my mind, but I have spent hours mulling over what you all have been saying, trying to find if my own pride is again in the way of me being more right. And if I could with integrity claim these ideas being said by others as my own. I can't honestly.
I wouldn't countenance a CEO being asked to vacate his job in the same way Eich was were all circumstances identical save they donated to pro-SSM causes. And not because I happen to agree with that particular cause. I wouldn't make it illegal, nor would I say demanding somebody resign is always wrong.
I'm also getting angry, which typically means I'll be even less persuasive if I continue. I believe in social activism, having engaged in it myself. I believe businesses, and governments should be required to never consider sexual orientation as grounds for lesser treatment. Where they do, they should be made to face consequences that will result in their correcting their behavior.
But I also believe that people as a rule suck at trying to lovingly correct others' beliefs/behavior, and are especially gifted at contending with or punishing it (Especially when wronged). Good at trying to create uniformity, bad at accepting/celebrating diversity.
I don't count myself an exception to that rule.
I believe, Dogbreath, Rakeesh, Samprimary, et al are motivated by good in defending those who called for Eich's resignation. I know they believe my position would silence minority opinions. I don't think it would.
I'm not interested in defending any one group other than the one I feel is voiceless in a conversation. I do that because I am motivated by personal experience that have lead me to believe that too often if we really comprehended things from other perspectives we would not so often be so filled with consternation at another person's words/actions.
posted
it's not really so much that i think your position would 'silence minority opinions' — it's more or less that your opinion can't be made to have an effect that prevents why eich had to leave.
use me as a particular example. I work in that general field. if i found out if the ceo of the company i work at was donating to anti-gay organizations, i'm done. i would be gone if that person remained the ceo for long. you could not get me to continue willingly working for that organization.
that's my right. that's a sight bit of free association going on there. you can't compel me to stay through any means that isn't bafflingly autocratic to the extent of being something nearly nobody would propose.
none of my friends who are queer would.
none of my friends who are friends of my queer friends would.
we'd all start inexorably dropping that place like a bad habit. we have an economically privileged position that allows us to do so since we can hop between tech companies and startups at will so we aren't really subject to the general economic vassaldom that keeps most american workers in thrall to their current itinerant cycle of usually part-time work.
to solve the eich problem you have to convince us not to leave. otherwise, well, we are, and eich is destroying the company in degrees by staying at his post.
it's really not happening.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly suspect, BlackBlade, that your fundamental hang up here is that you haven't been able to get past this notion that what happened with Brendan Eich was punishment or vindictiveness.
Try Rakeesh's mental experiment just for a minute. Try and imagine a world where people quit their jobs, not to punish their boss, but because they don't want to work for someone who is actively trying to hurt them and their family by stripping them of a basic human right. Imagine just for a second that a gay person leaving Mozilla in protest isn't doing so vindictively to "punish someone for a unpopular belief."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't countenance a CEO being asked to vacate his job in the same way Eich was were all circumstances identical save they donated to pro-SSM causes. And not because I happen to agree with that particular cause. I wouldn't make it illegal, nor would I say demanding somebody resign is always wrong.
I wouldn't countenance correcting my child for kissing his little sister so I shouldn't correct my child for hitting his little sister.
Why would we treat good behavior and "sub-optimal" behavior the same?
quote:"These have been extraordinary times in our university’s history, and I am in complete agreement with the board that the termination of Dr. Click is in the best interest of our university," Foley said. "Her actions in October and November are those that directly violate the core values of our university."
I'm guessing the only reason it took this long to happen is because tenured professors are pretty difficult to fire compared to other employees, so it's a more involved process.
She's also been charged with misdemeanor assault, and may see further criminal/civil action. I definitely wouldn't call it a "right" so much as "a thing that, if you do it, will get you fired and possibly jailed."
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
